OCinBuffalo

If the Pats preseason pass rush is any indication? If DeSean Jackson's performance against Aqib Talib is any indication? If Goodwin doesn't come down with a case of the rookies?(um, like TJ Graham did, which is the only reason we lost at their place last year?) Torched. Now, clearly those are dependent variables. IF the Pats can produce a pass rush? Everything changes. They were awful at it this preseason. Doesn't mean they can't, but, we've been down that road with our team as well. How many times did we see our team with no pass rush in the preseason, suddenly develop one in the regular season, after having been told that "it's no big deal/we are running vanilla"? That's right: hardly ever. One thing that is not a variable? Talib is slow(in this context, I'm not gonna challenge him to race. 10 years ago? Sure) and Goodwin is fast. Can Goodwin get off the line? Can the O line protect enough for a bomb? Can... Lot's of questions. However, the opportunity is undeniably there. Doubly so if Chandler and Stevie can create enough problems for their LBs/nickel CBs, making their Safeties have to come help. Spikes is crap in coverage. He simply sucks at it. So, again, the opportunity is there.

Yeah, I can see the adjustments thing. I mean, it's not like this team lacks sound coaching. And, if there is a weakness, Belechick and company can probably fix it. However, coaching doesn't stop a brusing D line from throwing you around, as was done to you, in the Lions game. On some plays it is going to come to 1v1, and in that, and only that? The Pats O line didn't appear to be top 5 material. As I said: Mayo was up and down. I am a football fan before I am anything, and I respect good players for what they are: good players, regardless of team. But, the other side of that means that when I see a guy quitting on a play? I don't respect that. I know it's preseason, but, a habit like that is not a good one to begin, at any time. Yeah, because no veteran player, after a year has gone by, has ever lost a step...in the history of the NFL. Please. If you look at my observations objectively, you'll clearly see that they are largely based on individual performances. NO player is suddenly going to get stronger/faster/quicker, or be able to make reads and react all of sudden...way better...in the regular season. So, the preseason excuse for this type of evaluation is patently retarded. Nevermind tiresome. If you look at team outcomes, then of course, "the preseason is a crock 90% of the time". That's not what I did. No. I clearly spoke about individual play. It can be summed up as easily as this: Is Spikes suddenly NOT going to be a liability in coverage in the regular season? No. It is as I said: Belechick will probably try to hide him in the scheme, as he has done quite well, right along. The difference is, only now can the Bills make him pay for that, by hitting them where the help has come from. You can't do that with the pop-gun arm QBs we've been playing for the last ~5 years. Aqib Talib could wind up having a very, very long day trying to match his slow against Goodwin's fast....but...only if EJ can get him the ball. That is why we watch the games. I don't know that he will, but, you sure as hell don't know that he won't.

Bastards. Gatorman is my toy. You are stealing him. It's as simple as that. However, I am fully aware that I can't be here all the time to play with my toy, and it's unfair to ask you not to play with such a fun toy. Therefore, I will permit you to play with him, but not on Wednesday. Also, I will allow each of you no more than 3.5 responses to gatorman per day, over the course of a non-Wednesday week. EDIT: Also, it's not like I didn't tell him this: would happen.

That's not the question. The real question? Where are the idiots who told us: 1. Obama has plenty of executive leadership experienece because: he runs a campaign? 2. Obama has no need of real foreign policy experience because: the world loves him? 3. Obama has no need of real military experience because: Colin Powell likes him? Did you see those 8 generals on the stage in Denver? Problem Solved! I'll tell you: walking around like nothing has happened, as if they shouldn't be held accountable for their idiocy. They will never admit to saying all this crap, because they never admit to anything. All they do is try to "pivot"...to Gay Marriage, to Global Warming...to anything. The trouble for them is: those days are over. All of these wedge issues have expired. And, that DNC consultant was right: Obama, and the "Squirrel!" people, are doing irreparable damage to the Democratic Party. Tell me that the stereotype of "leftist = kitty" hasn't been reinforced by this guy, 10x over. Hillary is being royally screwed by this, and you can damn well bet she knows it. That's why she's hiding. She's in a bunker someplace ordering room service every day, and howling at the TV. Meanwhile, her potential competitors, like Rand Paul, are out in front, talking about the issue and trying to lead on it....because the incompetent boob in the office has no clue what to do, and therefore will do what he always does: base it on politics.

No the problem is that I understand all of these things, but, you don't understand your history or the sheer power of a real multinational outfit. You think a bunch of pissant drug lords can compete with ADM? Idiocy. I've run projects for 5 multinationals so far. How many have you done? Get a F'ing grip. Are you that dumb that you don't think companies like ADM have distribution in place, today, that is 50x more efficient than some cartel guy who rents a U-haul? Are you that silly that you think Pfizer won't finish first with the FDA, long before the cartel people can even hire the lawyers and technical people? My assumption there is based on making all drugs legal. I don't think we need FDA approval for weed, we simply apply the same regulations for beer, wine, whiskey, and leave all of that up to the states. Moving on to another of your inanities: Are you saying that the post-Prohibition Mafia didn't have resources? In those dollars, they had every bit of the resources, and probably 3x the resources of the cartels. The Black Hand was a 2-bit outfit before Prohibiton. It became a international organization we know as the Mafia directly due to Prohibition. However, the other transition? They turned from being nothing but killers and thieves, into something more like businessmen. The smart guys moved up. The dumb guys were removed. And, what happened once Prohibition ended? These smart businessmen moved their assets out of what was now clearly a losing play, and into a winning one: Las Vegas and Cuba. Sure they ended up losing Cuba. But for 20 years? They made a crapload of money there. They made a killing off of Vegas, and are still involved one way or another. The other thing they moved their money into? Drugs Yes, the business model still worked. Imagine that, all they had to do was trade bathtubs for hydroponics, and then run everything the same. Only an idiot can't see the truth here. Spread your ingorance of history elsewhere. The ONLY reason any of this has occurred: dopes making things illegal, and pretending that was going to stop anything. And, dopes preventing American Big Business from doing business, in favor of losers and scumbags. All drugs being illegal does is keep real, "kick your ass out of the market", competition away.

Double Baloney. Now...for those of you sorry turds who use the term "straw man argument", but don't know what it means? Here it is: The straw man here is pretending that Irish whiskey and Canadians and/or early domestic producers is where most alcohol in this country comes from. See his little hands and feet? Yes, let's make a pretend little man, and argue that he's where most of the alcohol comes from, therefore, my argument? Obfuscated. Let's call this little man: Snuffy Smith. Yes, you know your history(or at least, your old comics): Snuffy ended up selling Moonshine to all 50 states, because he already had the means of production and distribution and he was able to.....BS! The reality is that most of the alcohol in this country comes from massive, corporate oufits that produce it by the 10,000s of tons per day, which is why you can buy a six pack for $5.99 most places, and none of these producers were established prior to Prohibition. I wonder then: what ever happened to the old speak easy distelleries and brewerys that were all over the country? What happened to Snuffy? Yeah, they got trucked by good old American capitalism, no different than the Drug Cartels would be. Next he'll try to tell me that Budweiser, prior to Prohibition = Budweiser of today. No. The simple fact is that if you apply corporate America to drug production, no different that it already has been, you get a cheap, and more importantly, clean, product whose quality would literally destroy the drug cartels in a matter of months. Every gangbanger: broke. Every inner city Democrat politician? Broke a few months after. There's simply nothing left to support the stores/pay the rent. Everybody would have to go get a real job, because, most street dealers are already on some form of assistance. Legalizing drugs would put Detroit in an even bigger hole, and that's a good thing. No constant cash infusion from the suburbs left to support bad ideas and bad politicians. Imagine Wal-Mart selling weed for $10/oz. And, don't fool yourself: they would. They sure as hell aren't gonna let K-Mart have all that action.

See? More little details are coming out here and there. All it takes is for one dude to panic if he thinks they are getting close to him, and the whole thing comes apart. Clearly I can't say for certain what is going to happen. However, it's still a strikingly similar pattern to Watergate. Nixon came out and essentially called that whole thing phony as well. If CNN is still talking about it? That's a big deal. The big deal is: many reporters are fools, but, some aren't. All it takes is 1 or 2 who smell Bob Woodward status for life, and have the ability. It's a matter of time, and competence, and, if there is one decent soul who actually is "more moral" than the others. A coward would do nicely as well. I'm betting on the latter.

EDIT: I see you're still too chickenshit to reply to my sig directly, or, to explain your understanding of Medicaid, in the context of how this Michigan thing isn't a giant cluster!@#$ waiting to happen. I've already given you what to google: "unfunded Medicaid mandate", "how does Medicaid work", and "Medicaid reimbursement". Yes, nothing like quoting a political organization. They are sure to be objective. It literally says "health care advocacy group" in your quote. Are you that dumb? We have news articles, facts, etc., and in response, you present hackery and spin? And you wonder why I laugh at you. For the last time, my sig represents one thing: If the prototype of Obamacare, which is precisely what my sig refers to, went bankrupt when it was used on a small scale, with few dependencies, it is certain to do the same in the large scale, real world version, with 10x the dependencies. If you knew anything about systems work, you'd know what a protoype is, and why we build them. But, people like you don't build large systems for a living. People like me do that. Therefore, we know a bad design when we see it. You don't even know the premsises for creating a good system design. Unfortunately, instead of getting a group of people like me to create Obamacare, they got a bunch of clowns like your "political advocacy group", to build it. Lawyers and loons? Building systems? FAIL. Hell...I would have done the work for free, and many others like me as well, had we known about this abortion they were going to produce, and how badly it would F things up in every aspect of our professional lives going forward. But none of that matters to you: You are now supporting perhaps the single biggest system failure of all time, and the only reason? Political D-baggery. You don't even know what you don't know.

Right...it's the corporations who got up a year ago and talked about a "red line". I'm trying to visualize what this stretch would look like, if you were actually forced to make it with your body. Perhaps this? Nah, this couldn't be the fault of the incompetent boob you may have supported, who had no experience whatsoever, and told us running his campaign = leadership. Nothing is ever his fault. Let's blame corporate people! Let's ignore the fact that corporate people are routinely recruited heavily, by the political machinery of both parties...because the rank and file government employee tends to be inferior, and the political hackery appeals to the corporate person's sense of duty, to get them to take the pay cut and serve the country. This is hilarious. As if I, or any other "corporate American" would want to leave what I do, and go work for those clowns...without a genuine and necessary feeling that I was being selfless and sacrificing personal gain for the good of the country. People that talk about "corporate people"? 9/10 they don't know any at all. EDIT: However, I've done 4 projects for the government, and passed on 3 others. I know government employees plenty. When I call them inferior, that because I've seen them in action.

After all these years? I expect you to name me. I'd almost be offended if you didn't. However, we've had reasonable discussions, based on doing our own work. Can't say the same for everybody else. The only difference is where that work occurs. I miss stuff for the same reason you do: I focus on the WR/DB play. It's not for a lack of trying. I really have tried to look at the lines, but, for whatever reason, probably because I know the WR/DB individually, and the routs/schemes the best, I can't stay focused on the lines. Last game? I don't know how the F I'm supposed to stay focused on the lines, when our CBs are getting torched over and over. It was the most obvious thing on the field, especially from row 15 on the sidelines. I went from preparing for an enjoyable night game, to tearing my hair out, and this only took a few plays. This wasn't about safety help, or zone read misses. This was about guys being beaten at the snap, over and over. First step FAIL, over and over. Hips turning late. Giving cushion...to nowhere, there's nobody over there, there isn't going to be anybody over there. Rounding, rather than running straight to the spot? WHY? I could go on and on... Like it or not, we have to draft more CBs next year. We'll see how it goes with S. Unless you really think 5 foot nothing Nickel Robey can cover TEs. I'd think you'd agree that covering TEs has been problem #1 for the last 4 years, and, the only time we've beaten the Pats? We started covering their TEs: effectively. We're likely to get a pass this next game, but that's about it. EDIT: But hey, perhaps this guy they got off waivers can do the job. The story is he's our kind of CB that was stuck in Cover 2 hell. We'll see.

I've watched all the Pats games this preason, multiple times. Offense ********************* Tom Brady is Tom Brady. If we make mistakes he will capitalize. We've all seen what that looks like. As of now, I am not convinced that they have the best O line in football. I'm not even sure it is top 5. They can be beaten. They can be thoroughly whipped by a creative and/or disruptive front 7. Perhaps the biggest distortion coming out of the Lions game is the fumbles = the reason they got blown out. Yeah, they didn't help, but, the Lions D, and O, lines dominated them. Every time you say fumbles? I will say Matt Stafford sucks, or it could've been 50+ Lions in the first half. Only one fumble had nothing to do with the lines. However, it was clear that the Lions phyiscal play, and, even their dumb late/taunting penalties, got to the Patriots. They can say "preseason" and "the Lions were playing in their SB" all they like. They were intimidated, and we've all seen what that looks like as well. The one bright spot was Kenbrell Thompkins. I believe he made the roster with his game that day, and I wouldn't be surprised if we see him a whole lot on Sunday. We need to shut that guy down. If we do, we can win. Amendola simply doesn't scare me at all. The rest of the WRs are JAGs. EDIT: The Rbs are JAGs. Ridley will only be as good as the O line. It's like the old Denver running game. They can run block very well. So, Ridley should be able to get some good runs. However, getting up on the Pats takes the run away, just like it does for everybody else. However again, the Pats may very well run it no matter what. They can run it, and it's on us to stop it. Simple. The Lions stopped it cold, and that was before the Pats got down. Frankly, with our D line, there's no excuse why we can't do the same. No excuse whatsoever. IF we don't stop the run, then that is on our players lack of effort. Aside: You know when they do that double TE and a WR "bunch" set? I want to see us have the LDE or OLB not rush and head straight for the WR and knock him on his ass inside 5 yards. That is where the ball is going 90% of the time. That would screw up the timing, and, we wouldn't have to live through yet another crossing rout for 15-25 yards, when we all know it's coming. The best they could do is throw to one of the TEs, who isn't expecting the ball. Bring the CB in to "rush", but really, just to cover the outside guy's area. ***************** Defense Here's where I hate to say this, but I will anyway: The Pats LBs are a problem. I've been saying this since they lost their LBs from the SB years. They've never had the same D since. None of their stop gap fixes have worked. But, they've won anyway...with their O. This makes me look "wrong". However, I'm not. Their LBs aren't good. They are average, at best. They are slow to read, react, and, they are just slow, period. Belechick protects them with scheme, and by only asking them to do 1 thing well. We can cause trouble by forcing them to do what they don't do well. I just hope we don't overthink it. The elephant = Spikes is a liability in coverage, and if Chandler/EJ are on the same page? They will have to bring safety help, and that opens the door for the bomb(and helps Stevie, screens, etc.). This has always been true, since 2007, however, we haven't had a QB who can torch them with the bomb, consistently. So, the Pats, rightly, haven't cared. Spikes creates a huge problem, but, only if you can exploit it. Mayo has played up and down recently. Example: Against the Eagles he got driven backwards by the RB But, on the next play, he corrected and stopped the run for no gain. The Lions game? He seemed to quit on some plays. And, it wasn't just him. Against the Bucs, he looked OK, but he got burned a few times, and the O line got on him easily. Not sure if that's all his fault, as the D line didn't help him. Hightower has a chance to play like the old SB LBs did. I really like this guy. However, he is only one guy. I'm not sure that the quitting and the liabilities can be overcome by one guy. Their D line is really good against the run, as it has been. It will be interesting to see what our O line can do, and what Spiller can do. Finally? The even bigger elephant? The Pats haven't had this much trouble rushing the passer since before Parcells was there. If preseason is any indication at all? The Pats are in big trouble in this area. If it isn't, then once again, Bill Belechik coaching is amazing. It would be truly impressive if this gets fixed. However, I don't know how you fix this, other than by bringing more people. But, even the lowly Eagles were able to pick up the blitzers. I don't know how you get a guy to be more talented/faster/stronger/quicker/whatever going from the preseason to the regular. Couple all of this with a so/so secondary? And, I say that only because we haven't seen this group play together much. They could be decent. They could be bad. Perhaps this is the year that the bad drafting, bad FAs, and trading down, finally catches up with them.

Not so. Even if they win, and even if they meet with success? His teammates know that he could have done more. Sure they won, but...the "but" is still there. It's about respect. If you are going to ask the rest of the team to put in the effort to play their best, but, refuse to give yours? Just wait until they lose a few games in a row. Then that "but" comes out...big time. Conversely? We are almost sure to lose a few games in a row. Does anybody think that the team will turn on EJ, because he isn't working hard enough?

The isn't out of line with how they have behaved all training camp. Consider: Under Gailey and definitely under Jauron, we had 90 on the roster at all times. We signed 1, we cut 1, over and over. There was never a time when we didn't have at least 88 guys on the roster right up until the 75 deadline. Under Marrone: We cut guys and didn't replace them. We only had to cut 6 at the 75 deadline. Signing the 2 O lineman we did, did not mean some other poor schmuck loses his spot by default. No. He played himself off the team, rather than being a "numbers cut". It speaks to the mentality Marrone has established. He's not gonna treat players like assets to be managed. I would much rather have him tell me I wasn't gonna make it right away, and cut me, rather than keep me around for 5 more days, busting my ass, just so I can fill out his drills. There's a chance I can get picked up by another team, try out, etc., while camp is still going on. Another part: less players means more practice time for the people we are keeping. Finally, as I said elsewhere, it seems to me that this is about a standard being set. If only 50 guys meet that standard, then why are we keeping the other 3? Just to have them? I would have no problem going into a season with 50 guys on a roster, if all of them belong there, and they know each other belong there.

It's as if no one else in the NFL has ever signed a fill in...using their 53rd spot on the roster. And, this isn't even a new thing for this regime. They didn't keep signing people to get us back up to 90 all camp, like past regimes. The signings they did make weren't related to the cuts they made, and they weren't playing +1/-1 with the roster. When it came time to get to 75, they only had to cut 6. As they cut people they just left the roster spot open. I think that's because they trust their scouts. There was no point in bringing in a guy just to run him around, tell him he has a chance to make the team, and cut him later. I am sure the players appreciated that. The reality is that we had the open spots, and cut the guys we did, because those guys weren't good enough, period. We didn't hold onto guys just for the hell of it. All of this suggests a standard has been set, and if we don't have enough guys to meet that, we don't allow sub-standard guys onto the team just for the sake of having them. I have no problem going into a season with 49-52 guys on a roster, who all belong there, and know each other belong there.

Wow. If there ever was an example of the need to remind posters to: Keep Calm This thread is it.

Stevie watching tape is all I care about. Would you rather he was designing a new t-shirt? Not 100% accurate. I've watched all their games. It is true that they have serious ?, and, I'm pretty sure about what they are going to try to do with Amendola. It probably has about 30-40% chance of working, and that's because of Brady, not Amendola. This is also due to the fact that they simply do not have the threat at TE that they are used to having. We'll see, but, even when Gronk returns, it might shock a few people when he doesn't get the stats we're used to seeing. However, they have a new WR who can play. He's not Randy Moss, and I'm not saying he will be. However, you might want to consider Kenbrell Thompkins for your fantasy team, perhaps as your last reserve, because, come on, is that guy you have really gonna do anything? I believe that many will know exactly who he is by mid-season. Again, not saying he's good. Am saying: he has a prolific passer throwing to him, and there's a very good chance of him being targeted a whole lot.

Perhaps the most frustrating thing is: We have already learned this lesson. The Mafia, as we know it, wouldn't be who they are, or, at least, who they were, if it wasn't for Prohibition. Again, ignorance of history costs us. And, no, it isn't different just because it's not white Italians, Jews, Germans, Polish, and Irish this time around. This time around it's Russians, Latinos, Asians, poor WASPs, and of course...Africans/Carribeans. The story is the same: Just ask the Kennedy family. What is the fastest way to make money and be upwardly mobile? Crime = money = power = politics. Ask yourself why the Democrats are always the biggest proponents of the drug war? Besides the government jobs, drugs are path of least resistance for redistrubution of cash...not wealth. IF we legalized drugs tomorrow? How many Democrat-controlled cities would go bankrupt? Most. Drugs are a Keynesian multiplier, and Democrat party bosses know it. Drug money pays the inner city grocery store, and property taxes, just as much as it pays for new rims. The problem is: the current owners of the crime-->power equation are too stupid to create wealth with their cash, like Joe Kennedy did. That, and the culture they espouse is so self-destructive, that most of them are dead before they get the chance. But, you can bet that in a generation, having made enough money, most of the Asians, poor WASPs, and Russians will be out of the business. I'd bet many of the Latinos will be out as well. No different than how the Jews, Poles, Irish, and the Germans got out after Prohibition. The people who stay in it are there because they are either too dumb, or too corrupt, to do anything else. Or, their culture says they have stay there. These 2 things seem to contradict each other. US corporations like ADM being allowed to grow pot...vs...drug cartel? Please. That "competition" would be over in months. No. The cartel people would have to go back to growing coffee. Kennedy's? No. Jaun Valdez and his burro.

I imagine a fence would be involved. Electric even. The other thing: most farms aren't near lots of people. And, farms usually involve dogs, shotguns, etc. That's a problem that is easily solved. It beats the hell out of filling our prisons, coarsening our society further, and wasting billions on something that boils down to an emotional argument. If I was engaged to solve either, I'd take the fence problem over the "how do I stop supply in the face of demand" problem every time. Consultants are trained not to take on jobs they know will fail. EDIT: Oh, and if you turn this over to the American farmer(and/or corporations)? Weed would be so cheap that stealing it wouldn't be worth the effort. The reason you don't steal grapes and corn? It's easier just to buy it from the farmer's market/grocery store. Are you going to risk a criminal record for something that costs $4?

Yes, and when it's legal, we won't be running around in the forest. We will be growing by the highway, just like every other crop. So...no.

100% legal. Why are we importing something we can easily grow here?

Yeah, and when I fully explained it...you didn't reply. Now, you've brought it up again, as if your lack of reply = you "got" me. Go back to to that thread, and reply, or again, STFU. In this thread? You haven't replied to the issue at hand either. Show us your command of Medicaid, and why 4 years from now in Michigan...doesn't matter... or STFU. conner would at least try to reply. All you've done is repeat yourself, and that's what you've been doing in other threads as well. I dare you to look like a bigger tool at PPP. All I've done is, in B-Man's words, "grind you up". By all means, keep providing me material.

Explain exactly how Medicaid works, how Medicaid unfundend mandates work, and how in the hell "90% of the costs" are going to be magically paid in 4 years. Or STFU. You're giving every liberal a bad name with your idiocy...which...is just fine by me. But, I don't think it's fine by them. By all means, keep setting me up to knock you down though. It's getting fun. I've never had my own conner. And, as you can see, DC_Tom is trying his damndest to steal you from me. Much depends on whether you go full retard.

In Korea, they have no stalls, or, at least they didn't when I was there. And, all unisex bathrooms. Some of these guys would absolutely freak out. As far as the Ralph goes, I don't care as long as the lights are on. If I ever had any bathroom concerns, the SD power outage game reset my tolerance. All this "the door is too open" stuff...is mincy...compared to being in that situation. Good = getting out of there with only a slight splash of pee on your elbow.

Dammit! Right about here: I thought this was going to get good. Why not? Where is the hand we can't see headed? Tell me this isn't how it normally starts. But no. Denied.

Problem Definition: About 10 years ago, I told everybody I knew that Facebook was a terrible idea, and that they should steer clear. That's only because I could see it, the vision, and it's consequences, from a data perspective. This story is merely the logical extension of that perspective. When you put your entire life up for public debate? When you've monetized your self expression into "likes"? When your existence and self-worth is now indistinguishable from an accounting treatment? But then...nobody cares, or "likes"? (At least if we could "hate" that would be better, wouldn't it? At least they get the "transaction".) What is left to do but raise the stakes? This story == the stakes being raised, big time. Problem Effect: I wouldn't be surprised if this went something like this: 1. Look at me and my friend. No? Ok then, 2. Look at me and my friend, in skimpy clothes, "aren't we hot?" No? Ok then, 3. Look at me naked, (because my friend isn't a moron, or, has some "in real life" self-esteem, or, has a mother to be feared) No? Ok then, 4. Like my pics and you can F me. No? Ok then, 5. I want to F 100k guys. Now you will "like" her. You have to pay attention. That's because she's crossed the line of common decency: by miles. This isn't Howard Stern voyeurism. This is a serious psychological problem that is facilitated by the F'ed up cost accounting I've described above. Facebook is a problem for far too many people. This is NOT a good place for kids, and not because of swearing or MTV stuff. No. The problem, as I've described, is much deeper and pervasive than that, and, this story is, again, merely an extreme extension of that problem. Solution: Perhaps the solution is to compel this woman to have an hour conversation with a real artist. That will be painful, yes , but still: a real artist will tell her that their expression is for them, and is about what they "like". When they complete it, they are done with it, and it's on to the next thing. As humans we all care what others think, despite our claims to the contrary. However, the choice to place 100% value on that judgement, as opposed to 20%? That choice belongs to each one of us, always. The artist controls the "window into their soul" by only putting forward what they want the public to see. The problem Facebook user controls nothing, since everything is up for evaluation, every day, all the time.